Could subdermal microchip ids be a good soulution to our imagration problem?

Question

If we have all our citizens were these it would make it easy to know who is here illegaly and who isn't.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020311-214099,00.html

Answer 1

Actually, I said years ago that it would be a practical idea to have a microchip that carries all of your banking information, the problem is that the government would exploit it for the full purpose of iron fisted control. What we need to do is simply enforce the laws that are already in place. This way, the problem is over before it begins.

-J.

Answer 2

No that sounds far too much like a futuristic police state rather than America.There are better ways to accomplish the same results without "branding" people with microchips.
This proposed law will help a lot I think,it will accomplish many things,first it will make our election process less open to fraud and will help making sure that any one must be a citizen to vote in our elections.As it stands any one can and they do vote without being citizens.Here is the new proposed law ,lets hope it gets passed and implemented.

The Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 will require individuals
registering to vote to provide a photo ID by 2008, as well as
proof of citizenship by 2010.

The last 2 paragraphs on the first page of your link caught my attention,they are below

Security is part of the VeriChip business plan. The company has already signed a deal with the California department of corrections to track the movements of parolees using Digital Angel. Seelig believes VeriChip could function as a theftproof, counterfeit-proof ID, like having a driver's license embedded under your skin. He suggests that airline crews could wear one to ensure that terrorists don't infiltrate the cockpit in disguise. "I travel quite a bit," he says, "and I want to make sure the pilots in that plane belong there."

Could the airlines or government really require pilots to get chipped? "I think we have a right to demand that," says Seelig. "Our lives are in their hands." It sounds extreme, but there are precedents. In the early '90s several states considered laws that would have required female child abusers and women on welfare to wear birth-control implants. The proposals were not very popular. "There's a feeling that technology has outpaced the policy process," says Steven Aftergood, a senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists. "We aren't in a position to apply these new devices with the wisdom and prudence that is needed."

Answer 3

Sounds like the tinfoil hat brigade were right. This IS New World Order we are talking - the mark of the beast! A similar process was tried between IBM and the Third Reich (using devices called the Hollerith tabulating machine) and it ended up as the implementation of the "Final Solution". All data regarding ethnic origins, religious beliefs, social status, etc was compiled on punchcards and helped to speed up the process whereby people were sent to the gas chamber. Even if this hypothetical microchip was implemented by a peaceful government with the best of intentions - remember that in democracies, governments change. The next ones to access all your personal data could be thinking about bumping you off.

Answer 4

They're an excellent idea for the storage of health information, but lines must be drawn between the government's right to enforce an ID policy and the individual's right to control their body. Our own US government now admits that it secretly conducted a decades-long sterilization campaign against unwed mothers and certain people with disabilities, using X-Rays and surgery to prevent the individuals that they saw unfit for reproduction from ever producing offspring, in what seemed to them like routine visits to the doctor. It lasted until the mid-seventies.

In many grocery stores, individual identification chips function as tracking devices to control shrink and track lost shipments. It's a great idea for parents with wandering children, but not so fine of a notion for an entire nation. You can embed a lot of commands into that tiny piece of silicone. It's nice to think that only the guilty should worry, but historically it just doesn't ring true.

But God, do I love reading Time. This is a pretty cool topic.

Answer 5

I'm all for anything that makes it clear who's illegal...as long as it does not infringe on the rights of citizens to deny the gov't the right to implant anything into her citizens bodies against their will...and I know many many Americans won't voluntarily go along with this...so it's not likely to work out.

Answer 6

The law cannot force innocent people to be implanted with chips. That's a constitutional violation of the fundamental right of bodily integrity. Nor would branding, or bar-codes on the body allowed under current constitutional rules.

There are also far less intrusive means available.

Answer 7

No, means all legal residents of US will have to plant a chip in them, to prove that they are legal.

And then, with the chip, Big Brother will always be watching. That may be good if you are a kidnap victim, but for vast majority of Americans, thats a big no-no.

So, just to prevent illegals, the legals should not have to go under the knife.

Answer 8

Sounds like fulfillment of "the mark of the beast" from the Bible.
I would think that it would be too difficult to catch those critters to microchip them if they're here legally ! They'd probably never go for it.

Answer 9

NO! because not everyone would do it, and what if u dont have the microchip then ur an illegal and then u get kickd out of ur own country? that would suck big time!!!

Answer 10

No. illegal and Unconstitutional, though I know you don't care about that!

Arrest and charge their employers!! Why is it that none of you on the right want to do that, but don't mind violating the constitution, huh? I bet I know!!